Gearing up (again) for the next release: 2014.2.0.0

[Mateusz Kowalczyk]

On 05/04/14 17:34, Mark Lentczner wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Mateusz Kowalczyk
> <fuuzetsu at fuuzetsu.co.uk>wrote:
> 
>> There's an if clause in the Cabal file. If we're in the GHC tree when
>> building, we set a symbol and then Haddock knows where to look for the
>> libs. If we aren't, *then* we require ghc-paths.
>>
>> AFAICT it has been this way since 2008.
>>
> 
> Curious! I never had a problem building haddock as part of the platform
> before, but in the new build, I ran across the need for ghc-paths. 

Perhaps it was already installed on the machine.

> Perhaps
> the old build isn't nearly as "hermetic" as I thought it was, and new one
> more so. It is also possible that GHC might have previously shipped with
> ghc-paths?

I don't think it every did ship with ghc-paths, at least I can't think
of a reason why it would.

In any case, if you do require that you build Haddock yourself, adding
ghc-paths to the platform should be no problem. It's pretty simple
although I can't vouch for its suitability in the platform.

My overall advice is that you simply use the Haddock that ships with
GHC: at the moment, the Haddock that is planned to ship has close to
every new feature we had so there should be no reason to build one yourself.

> - Mark
> 



-- 
Mateusz K.